Aspergers Spectrum Disorder
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Parental Alienation, Parental Disorders, Psychological Disorders, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Cronin J
Background: Mr Garzelli (“the husband”) married Ms Lewis (“the wife”) in January 2007 after they had met in 2005 through the internet. The husband is a 61 year old company director who was born in Australia. The wife is a 48 year old woman who was born in Country I. The husband and wife have one child N (“the child”) who was born in 2009 in Country I. This case focussed primarily on the credibility of the wife, and on the expectation that she would work with the father in a co-operative, shared parenting arrangement.
[Legal Issue]The Court, with the assistance of the psychiatric and psychological experts, determined that the mother went to significant efforts to manipulate circumstance to reflect poorly on the husband.
It was suggested that a diagnoses of Borderline or Schizoid personality style or Asperger’s Spectrum Disorder was very likely, exposing the child to likely Parentified Child behaviours, which would force the child to align with the mother and abandon her relationship with her father, so as to meet the mother's increasingly demanding emotional needs and desires.
The diagnoses would render the chances of a co-operative parenting arrangement very unlikely.
[Court Orders]That the husband have sole parental responsibility for the child born ... 2009 but for that purpose, the husband ensure the wife is kept abreast of all major issues about the child and in particular:
(a) advise the wife of any medical treatment for the child;
(b) authorise and direct the school at which the child attends to provide all school reports, newsletters, photographs and invitations usually directed to parents to be provided to the wife.
The parents to otherwise have shared parenti
Catchwords: Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Parental Alienation, Parental Disorders, Psychological Disorders, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unsubstantiated Allegations
Judges: Cronin J
Background: Mr Garzelli (“the husband”) married Ms Lewis (“the wife”) in January 2007 after they had met in 2005 through the internet. The husband is a 61 year old company director who was born in Australia. The wife is a 48 year old woman who was born in Country I. The husband and wife have one child N (“the child”) who was born in 2009 in Country I. This case focussed primarily on the credibility of the wife, and on the expectation that she would work with the father in a co-operative, shared parenting arrangement.
[Legal Issue]The Court, with the assistance of the psychiatric and psychological experts, determined that the mother went to significant efforts to manipulate circumstance to reflect poorly on the husband.
It was suggested that a diagnoses of Borderline or Schizoid personality style or Asperger’s Spectrum Disorder was very likely, exposing the child to likely Parentified Child behaviours, which would force the child to align with the mother and abandon her relationship with her father, so as to meet the mother's increasingly demanding emotional needs and desires.
The diagnoses would render the chances of a co-operative parenting arrangement very unlikely.
[Court Orders]That the husband have sole parental responsibility for the child born ... 2009 but for that purpose, the husband ensure the wife is kept abreast of all major issues about the child and in particular:
(a) advise the wife of any medical treatment for the child;
(b) authorise and direct the school at which the child attends to provide all school reports, newsletters, photographs and invitations usually directed to parents to be provided to the wife.
The parents to otherwise have shared parenti
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Contravention, Meaningful Relationship, Non-Parent, Parentage, Parental, Parental Rights, Parenting Orders, Relocation, Same Sex Parents, Same Sex Relationship, Step Parent
Judges: Coleman JJarrett FMMay JWarnick J
Background: Two women had lived in an intimate relationship for 9 years and two children were born during this time using IVF, with each woman being the biological parent of one child (same sex relationship). One woman then left the relationship taking her birth child with her. Orders were issued for the two children to spend significant time with the other woman and to see their sibling. One woman then relocated further away making the order impractical and the other woman appealed arguing that the first woman was not facilitating an ongoing meaningful relationship between her and the child whom she considered that she had parented.
[Legal Issue]Each woman claimed to be a parent of the other’s child, although the trial judge found to the contrary as only a biological parent or an adoptive parent meets the legal definition of being a parent. Both women submitted that each child regarded each of the women as a mother.
The Appeal Court found that if a child is born by an artificial conception procedure while the woman is married to a man and the procedure is carried out with the joint consent of both adults, then the child is their child for the purposes of the Act, or both the woman and man are parents of the child.
The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent). The appeal was dismissed.
[Court Orders]The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent).
The appeal was dismissed.
Catchwords: Appeal, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Contravention, Meaningful Relationship, Non-Parent, Parentage, Parental, Parental Rights, Parenting Orders, Relocation, Same Sex Parents, Same Sex Relationship, Step Parent
Judges: Coleman JJarrett FMMay JWarnick J
Background: Two women had lived in an intimate relationship for 9 years and two children were born during this time using IVF, with each woman being the biological parent of one child (same sex relationship). One woman then left the relationship taking her birth child with her. Orders were issued for the two children to spend significant time with the other woman and to see their sibling. One woman then relocated further away making the order impractical and the other woman appealed arguing that the first woman was not facilitating an ongoing meaningful relationship between her and the child whom she considered that she had parented.
[Legal Issue]Each woman claimed to be a parent of the other’s child, although the trial judge found to the contrary as only a biological parent or an adoptive parent meets the legal definition of being a parent. Both women submitted that each child regarded each of the women as a mother.
The Appeal Court found that if a child is born by an artificial conception procedure while the woman is married to a man and the procedure is carried out with the joint consent of both adults, then the child is their child for the purposes of the Act, or both the woman and man are parents of the child.
The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent). The appeal was dismissed.
[Court Orders]The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent).
The appeal was dismissed.